WHAT DO VICTIMS WANT: PUNISHMENT? TREATMENT? RESTITUTION?
Why should victims bring their problems to the attention of a law enforcement agency that func- tions as the intake valve or first component of the legal system? What motivates them when they ask the police to set the crime justice process into motion? What kinds of results are they seeking from the authorities? What would be in their best interests? What does “justice” mean to them?
Rather than answer these questions that others must decide for themselves, the victims’ rights movement has sought empowerment. That means
the ability to have some input into important deci- sions at every step in the criminal justice process, from initially filing a complaint with the police up to the release of the perpetrator from custody, or probation, or parole. Empowerment would enable the injured parties to exercise their “agency”— taking actions in pursuit of outcomes that embody their sense of fair play, self-interest, and desire for closure.
But why demand inclusion? Why insist on having a chance to participate at key junctures in the criminal justice process?
Victims can pursue one or even a combination of three distinct goals. The first is to see to it that hard-core offenders who act as predators are pun- ished and removed from the streets so that they can’t harm their victims again, or prey upon others. The second is to use the justice process as leverage to compel lawbreakers to undergo rehabilitative treatment to counteract their criminal inclinations. The third possible aim is to get the court to order convicts to make restitution for any expenses arising from injuries and losses.
Make “Them” Suffer
A serial killer terrorizes a small city by binding, torturing, and killing his victims. He taunts the local police for three decades by sending them clues, but they fail to figure out his identity until finally they trace a disk he sent them to his church’s computer. After a court hearing, the son of his tenth and final victim denounces him to reporters as “a rotting corpse of a wretch of a human hiding under a human veneer. I’m spiteful, I’m vengeful, and I relish the thought that he knows that he’ll walk into that prison but he’ll be carried out.” (Wilgoren, 2005).
A man is convicted of murdering three younger men with whom he was arranging a drug deal by shooting them point-blank in the back of the head as they sat in a car parked near a university. When the judge hands down the maximum sentence, life without parole, family members of the victims shout “Yes! Yes!” and weep. One mother declares “Justice was
V I C T IMS AND THE P OL I C E 179
Copyright 2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203
done. He’s going to suffer more than I have suffered.” (McKinley, 2013)
A 23-year-old is four months pregnant when a young man enters her mobile home under the pretext of seeking directions, and then forces her into the bedroom and rapes her. Three decades later, he is finally convicted and sentenced for first degree criminal sexual conduct. Exercising an opportunity to voice her opinion, she tells the judge, “it’s been a rough 31 years…. My sex life has been screwed up … I hope he goes away for the rest of his life. (Deiters, 2013)
Penalizing offenders for the pain and losses they imposed on their victims is what comes to most people’s minds first when discussing the meaning of “justice.”
Besides physical injuries, victims can suffer socially and emotionally in the aftermath of a seri- ous violent crime such as rape, sexual assault, aggra- vated assault, and robbery. Just about two-thirds of the persons subjected to serious violent crimes told NCVS interviewers that they were burdened by socio-emotional problems, including moderate to severe levels of distress (manifested as anxiety,
depression, anger, and sleep disturbances), strained relationships with family members and friends, and/ or disruptions of their usual activities at school or work. But only a little more than half of those who experienced these upsetting consequences informed the police about their plight, and only slightly more than one in every ten received help from some service agency during the years 2009 to 2012 (Langton and Truman, 2014).
Many people hurt by acts of interpersonal vio- lence and theft want the justice system to punish convicts in their behalf so that they will suffer too. Throughout history, people have always pun- ished one another. However, they may disagree about their reasons for subjecting a wrongdoer to deprivations and hardships. Most deliberations in court concern questions of punishment: who, why, when, where, and how much?
Punishment—imposing unpleasant and unwanted consequences—is usually justified on utilitarian grounds as a necessary evil. It is argued that making transgressors suffer curbs future criminality in a number of ways. According to the doctrine of spe- cific deterrence, the perpetrator who experiences negative sanctions learns a lesson and is discouraged from breaking the law again. Making an example of
B O X 6.1 Notable Criticisms of How the Criminal Justice System Handles Victims
If there is one word that describes how the criminal justice system treats victims of crimes and witnesses to crimes, it is “badly.”